Tag: Europe

Election Integrity in Romania

The Romanian November presidential elections have prompted many questions about democracy and election integrity within the nation. After the elections were conducted, it was reported that independent and wildcard candidate Calin Georgescu garnered 22.94% of votes and won by plurality; however, this outcome has since been annulled and the second round of voting has been canceled. Romanian courts and intelligence have cited alleged Russian interference, questionable campaign finance practices, and inappropriate use of the social-media app TikTok as reasons for rejection. While the elections have been rescheduled, many Romanian citizens remain concerned about their country’s ability to conduct free and fair elections going forward, thus leading to apprehension regarding Romanian democracy. Similarly, the suspected Russian involvement in the election warrants further examination.  

 

Romanian voters cast their ballot during the 2024 elections. They are in a classroom set up to turn in ballots.
Image 1: Romanian citizens cast their ballots. Source: Yahoo Images

Presidential Elections

The Romanian presidential elections were held on November 24, 2024. While many well-established candidates ran for this position, the winner, having achieved 22.94% of the votes, was Calin Georgescu, an independent candidate. Prior to the election, polls estimated a 5th-place finish for Georgescu, resulting in greater shock at his victory. Similarly, his policies are at odds with many of the other candidates, as he vowed to distance the country from global organizations such as the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Georgescu gained much of his notoriety from TikTok, where he gained popularity by attracting young voters, targeting voters’ frustrations, and spreading misinformation. He also encouraged his supporters to share his content and allegedly paid users to promote his campaign without disclosing the partnership. Since Georgescu gained a plurality, he was moved into the second round of voting, competing against second-place and popular candidate Elena Lasconi. 

On December 2nd, the Romanian courts requested that the votes be recounted; however, the reason for this was not made public. Even though a recount was underway, the courts insisted that second-round voting would continue and that no evidence suggested that Georgescu’s victory was invalid. Many citizens question the conduct used to carry out the recount, as no guidelines were publicly declared regarding how this analysis would occur. 

Calin Georgescu is surrounded by reporters and microphones, being interviewed following his first place win in the recent elections
Image 2: Calin Georgescu is interviewed following his first-place victory. Source: Yahoo Images

Annulled Results 

On December 6th, two days before the runoff election, the initial results were annulled and the second round of voting was canceled after Romanian intelligence declared that the election was undermined. Interference was found through cyber activities, most notably through TikTok, where authorities allege that the social media app gave Georgescu “preferential treatment.” Furthermore, officials suggest that fake, Russian-made accounts bolstered Georgescu’s page into popularity as it led to increased engagement and content circulation. With Romanian courts arguing that citizens have an inherent right to access accurate information about candidates, this rampant sharing of misinformation, allegedly encouraged by foreign influences, meant that this right was undermined, and thus warranted the results be annulled. Other sources of online Russian collusion were cited as reasons to cancel the election and reject its results. However, evidence and further explanation have not been revealed to the public. While Russia has ultimately rejected these claims, it has since led the European Union to enact stricter social media campaign regulations. 

Campaign finance issues were also uncovered, with authorities finding that candidates reported receiving and spending zero dollars throughout the course of the campaign trail. Officials imply the use of third-party financing, where money is sent through various accounts so that its origin remains unknown. This goes against standards set out by domestic Romanian law and the European Union, where campaign funding sources are expected to be disclosed. With these standards in place, Romanian courts argue that annulling the election results further signals its desire to uphold democratic principles along with domestic and regional legislation. 

New elections will be held on May 4th and 18th. Regardless, many citizens continue to protest for free and fair elections, as the annulment has led many citizens to question the nation’s electoral capabilities. In the meantime, President Klaus Iohannis will remain in power. As of now, it is unclear if Georgescu will be allowed to partake. 

Countless protestors rally outside government building, carrying Romanian flags
Image 3: Romanian citizens protest for free and fair elections. Source: Yahoo Images

Geopolitical Incentives

While there isn’t enough evidence to prove that Russian sources interfered in the Romanian elections, there are reasons to explain why Russia might have an interest in influencing the outcome. For starters, under a parliamentary system, the president plays a significant role in foreign policy, as they ratify international treaties, initiate or disband diplomatic missions, and communicate with foreign leaders. If Russia were to want to create warmer relations with Romania, influencing who becomes president would play an important role in achieving this goal. Another objective could be to distance the country from Western institutions, such as the European Union and the North Atlantic Trade Organization. By promoting Georgescu, a candidate who openly blames such organizations for the country’s problems, Russia can undermine trust in these institutions, ones that shame Moscow for its imperialist and authoritarian actions. Furthermore, Romania is home to critical NATO infrastructure, such as the largest NATO military base in Europe. This base strengthens NATO’s position on the Black Sea, an area where Russia poses military dominance. 

These reasons also tie into the Russia-Ukraine War. Throughout the course of this conflict, Romania has made great military contributions to support Ukraine. To achieve a victory in its imperialist conquest of Ukraine, Russia might find it beneficial to undermine Romania’s support for its neighboring country. 

Impacts on Democracy

The recent election annulment could have a great impact on the state of democracy in Romania. Though much consolidation has occurred since its commitment to democracy in 1991, the nation is still working on strengthening its democratic institutions. Because of this, the choices made by the Romanian government going forward could have long-lasting ramifications, such as weakening trust in such institutions. The Romanian courts argue that its decision was meant to align the nation further with the EU and to restore trust in its electoral process, but this has clearly not been the case. However, democracy could be further consolidated if this issue begins to be handled with transparency. By showcasing to Romanian citizens that Russian or other foreign involvement was found and terminated, it can indicate that the government had the ability to identify and remove election collusion. Furthermore, releasing intelligent reports and investigations provides necessary transparency during a political crisis that can reinforce trust in democracy and the government. Lastly, directing more resources to civil society groups can lead to the creation of safeguards against further interference. While it seems that Romania is on the cusp of democratic backsliding, by moving forward with transparency, the government can demonstrate its self-declared commitment to democracy. 

Conclusion

The recent annulment of the Romanian election results has triggered many questions regarding electoral integrity within the country. Campaign finance inconsistencies, the sharing of misinformation, and alleged Russian involvement, through both TikTok and other undisclosed sources are at the root of this political crisis. While this prompts many questions regarding the validity of other elections and overall national security, by moving forward with transparency, the government can further strengthen its democratic institutions and regain its citizens’ trust. If not, the nation could risk democratic backsliding, which is being seen in various European countries. Similarly, given its proximity to Ukraine, Romania is at risk of being caught in the crossfire if this alleged Russian collusion is found to be accurate and nothing is done to prevent it. Overall, to ensure Romania remains committed to democracy, international attention is warranted.

Democratic Backsliding in Georgia

In recent months, the country of Georiga has seen an increase in anti-democratic policies and government behavior, distancing the nation from Western states and institutions and further aligning itself with Russia and its allies. While political tension has been building within the country over the past decade, the passage of new policies, such as the Foreign Agent Bill and the LGBT Propaganda Bill, has taken this to new heights, receiving domestic and global condemnation as these programs fall in line with authoritarian initiatives taken in other countries. This prefaces the October 2024 parliamentary elections, where the incumbent Georgian Dream Party received a majority of the votes. However, due to the alleged use of voter intimidation and fraud, this result has been widely contested. These events have triggered mass demonstrations throughout the nation as citizens question the state of democracy within Georgia. Due to their longstanding history with Russia and the undemocratic nature of new policies, the events in Georiga warrant monitoring to ensure democracy remains. 

Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze speaks in front of Georgian and European Union flags
Image 1: Georgian Dream Party chairman and Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze speaks at an event. Source: Yahoo Images

History of the Georgian Dream Party

The policy platform and support of the Georgian Dream Party have seen a notable shift throughout its time in office. The party was founded in 2012 and quickly rose to prominence, receiving enough votes to oust the former administration later that year. During its conception, the party’s primary objectives were to improve relations with Western states and to join international organizations such as the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, while also opening up friendly communications with Russia. Popularity for these policies led to the party gaining an absolute majority in parliament in 2016, however; support dwindled following corruption scandals. Later in this administration, a Russian lawmaker was invited to join a Georgian parliamentary meeting, a decision that was met with great upset. Largescale demonstrations erupted as citizens protested the encroachment of Russian influence in their national institutions, rejecting the potential for future Russian involvement. Regardless, the Georgian Dream party won again in 2020 as it promised to take the necessary steps to join the EU. However, this commitment was halted in 2022, when the relationship between Russia-Georgian relations has seemingly strengthened since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. While numerous countries enacted economic sanctions on Russia, Georiga did not follow suit. Similarly, trade and travel have grown between the countries since 2022. 

Not only has the Georgian Dream Party strayed away from its original policy promises, but officials have also begun to spread harmful rhetoric and enact undemocratic policies. In the leadup to the October 2024 elections, the administration promoted that a “Global War Party” was the reason behind the invasion of Ukraine. This theory suggests that Western states are purposefully trying to prolong the war to weaken the Georgian state. The party has also recently passed the Foreign Agent Bill and the LGBT Propaganda Bill, both of which undermine core democratic principles. Though the Georgian Dream Party has not been free of problems, it is clear that, within the past few years, drastic changes have brought the country further away from democracy. 

Democratic Backsliding

Foreign Agent Bill

On August 1st, 2024, the Foreign Agent Bill was passed. This piece of legislation requires that non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive 20% or more of their total funding from international sources must label themselves as companies “pursuing the interest of a foreign power.” Georgia is home to thousands of NGOs, with many monitoring compliance to democratic standards and ensuring there is no return to its communist past. It is estimated that 90% of NGOs would fall under this category, thus undermining the validity of countless institutions and organizations. Furthermore, this bill primarily targets civil society and media organizations. Businesses are exempt from receiving this label, regardless of the percentage of foreign funding. While the Georgian government claims that this policy promotes transparency, the rhetoric that officials use when talking about NGOs suggests otherwise. In a speech given in April 2024, a prominent political figure explained how NGOs “do not love their country or their people because they do not really consider them to be their own”. Between the language used when discussing NGOs and the timing of the bill, many speculate that the purpose of this legislation is to undermine the credibility of opposition and pro-democracy groups, being enacted only 3 months before the 2024 elections. 

LGBTQ+ advocates protest for their rights, with one woman wearing a pride flag, and a man holding a poster saying how he wants his country back
Image 2: LGBTQ+ advocates protest against Georgian policies. Source: Yahoo Images

LGBT Propaganda Law

Passed into law only one month after the foreign agent bill, the LGBT Propaganda Law seeks extreme measures to ensure the protection of heterosexuality. Not only does it codify marriage between men and women, but it also bans LGBTQ+ members from adopting children, limits their representation in media, and monitors community events. Furthermore, it overrides anti-discrimination hiring policies and prohibits gender reassignment surgery. The implementation of this bill faced local and international condemnation. Within Georgia, opposition parties criticized the inherent discrimination at the core of the legislation. Similarly, the European Union warns that this legislation threatens the nation’s chances of becoming a member state. The combination of both these bills has raised questions regarding Georgia’s alliances, with many pointing out how these laws signal alignment with Russia over Western powers. 

October 2024 Parliamentary Elections 

On October 26, 2024, Georgia held its parliamentary elections, where Georgian Dream, the long-standing incumbent party, won a majority. However, these results have been widely contested, with the nation’s own president, Salome Zurabishvili, refusing to recognize the validity of the results. One reason backing these claims is the alleged use of voter intimidation tactics by the Georgian Dream party. Voters discuss cameras monitoring polling booths and the display of a Georgian Dream politician presenting a speech being aired directly outside polling stations. The passing of the Foreign Agent Bill has also warranted concerns as this legislation impacted the credibility of election monitoring organizations and groups ensuring democratic compliance. Furthermore, many changes were made to the electoral system in the months before the election, with this being the first election where parties must receive 5% of the vote to have representation in the parliament, and the first election using an electric ballot counting system. Regardless of these questions surrounding the validity of the election, domestic courts have refused to annul the results or to initiate a recount. Despite its alleged election rigging, the Georgian Dream Party still declares itself victorious. It has also declared a halt to its efforts to join the European Union, causing even more discontent amongst the population. 

A European Union, a Georgian, and a Ukrainian flag are held up in front of a Georgian government building among a large group of protesters
Image 3: Georgians protest and fight for their inclusion into the European Union. Source: Yahoo Images

Protests and Government Responses

These unaddressed concerns triggered a nationwide uproar, with protests fighting for democracy throughout the country. Beginning in early November, these protests demanded that new elections be held in compliance with democratic standards. President Zurabishvili has supported these efforts, protesting alongside Georgian citizens. These protests have continued since the election. Georgian police have reacted with force, unleashing tear gas, water cannons, and rubber bullets on peaceful protestors. Arrested over 20 individuals. The government has also enacted legislation that imposes restrictions on protestors, such as fining those caught hanging posters and stickers in public areas. These acts have also granted Georgian police the ability to proactively detain individuals they suspect will violate these limitations. While Georgian citizens continue to fight for and protect their democracy, it is clear that the current administration is taking steps to silence these voices.  

Conclusion

Georgia is experiencing a period of democratic backsliding as the current administration passes authoritarian-leaning legislation and distances itself from Western powers. Though it has never been void of issues, Georgian democracy has drastically weakened in the past few months, resulting in a contested election that reinstated power in the hands of the Georgian Dream Party. Legislation enacted throughout 2024 has also reduced the likelihood that Georgia will be able to join the EU. This backsliding follows a similar trend toward authoritarianism throughout Europe, seen in countries such as Hungary, Romania, Austria, and Poland, and raises concerns over a regional and global weakening of democracy. Similarly, Georgia’s previous relations with Russia make this issue more pressing and in demand of attention. 

 

New Italy-Albania Migration Deal Raises Human Rights Concerns

Throughout the past decade, the European Union (EU) has seen a rapid influx of refugees entering its countries as people flee violence, war, and persecution. Though this number peaked in 2015, a notable amount of migrants have continued to enter Europe, with roughly 385,000 seeking safety in European countries throughout 2023 alone. While irregular border crossings make up a small percentage of total immigration, concerns surrounding asylum-seekers and migrants have risen throughout the EU and have become highly politicized topics. Today, many countries in the region argue for strict border protections and harsher policies to be implemented into the union.

Being a coastal nation, Italy claims it has received a greater burden than other EU countries have, taking in over one million migrants since 2013. To counter this, Italy has recently entered into a deal with Albania, hoping to minimize immigration numbers. This agreement, pushed forward by Italy’s anti-immigration prime minister Giorgia Meloni, allows Italy to build and manage immigration detention centers within Albania’s borders and promises quicker screening of asylum claims. Albania will only receive those from “safe” countries, or nations the agreement deems free from violence and persecution; those seeking refuge from countries outside this list will continue to have their claims heard in Italy. While many argue that this system is an innovative solution to the question of immigration throughout the European Union, these decisions have been criticized by human rights advocates and Italy’s own judicial branch and raise concerns surrounding the treatment of asylum-seekers on a global scale.

A large groups of asylum-seekers sit near the Italian coast after their journey from their home country.
Image 1: Migrants sit on the Italian coast. Source: Yahoo Images

What is the Italy-Albania Agreement on Migration?

The Italy-Albania migration deal, finalized earlier this year and set into force in October, is an agreement between the two countries and is meant to reduce the number of immigrants entering Italy. Under this program, male asylum-seekers from predetermined “safe” countries found outside the European Union’s territorial waters are transferred to detention centers in Albanian cities. At these centers, detained migrants will experience expedited screenings, receiving their claim results in 28 days or less, with each person’s claim being reviewed by special courts. Based on the verdict, those granted asylum will be transferred to Italy, and those whose claims are rejected will be repatriated or sent back to their home country. Women, children, and vulnerable groups will be immediately sent to Italy, and it is promised that families will not be separated.  

This project is set to last for five years, process 36,000 claims annually, and have a total cost of 670 million euros, or $729 million. Albanian detention facilities will fall entirely under Italian jurisdiction and be fully staffed by Italian citizens, obligating these centers to remain compliant with the European Union’s laws on immigration and protected by the European Convention on Human Rights. As mentioned, these centers will only detain those from “safe” countries. These are countries that the agreement deems free of persecution, torture, and other forms of inhuman treatment. This list originally included 22 nations but was recently reduced to 19. It lists countries such as Egypt, Tunisia, and Bangladesh, and happens to include nations with some of the highest migration numbers. Migrants from these countries can still apply for asylum, though the odds of being granted are slim, as the agreement acknowledges that most of these claims will be rejected. Those whose claims are rejected will remain in Albania until plans are made to return them to their country of origin. 

Albanian and Italian prime ministers shake hands after singing new immigration deal
Image 2: Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni shakes hands with Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama. Source: Yahoo Images

Objectives of the New Italy-Albania Migration Deal

One of the primary objectives of this initiative is to reduce overcrowding along the Italian coast and islands, where an average of 100,000 migrants arrive each year. Typically, asylum claims are applied for at the Border Police Station. By relocating potential immigrants before they reach this destination, the average is expected to shrink. Similarly, by targeting refugees from safe countries, the likelihood that these claims receive an asylum grant is small, meaning fewer people are taken into Italy. This all feeds into one of the biggest reasons behind this deal: deterrence. As asylum claims are rejected in higher numbers and refugees cannot reach the European Union, the Italian government hopes that this will discourage others from attempting this journey. 

Threats to Human Rights

This agreement has remained controversial since its inception, with many people questioning its adherence to human rights protection, mainly regarding the treatment of vulnerable populations, prolonged detention, and the right to nationality. Under this agreement, those considered “vulnerable,” such as those in need of specific medical attention or with serious medical conditions, are at risk of not receiving proper treatment, as the law lacks written procedures to help such groups. As Amnesty International points out, “there is no clarity on whether such procedures would take place on board the rescue vessels or after disembarkation in Albania,” meaning there is no reassurance that at-risk groups will receive medical attention in a timely manner. This concern has appeared to have some validity, as it has recently been exposed that there are no mechanisms aboard ships that could properly classify someone as vulnerable. Similarly, a majority of asylum-seekers experience some sort of physical, sexual, or psychological abuse prior to or during their journey that would grant them protection from detention. 

This program also puts refugees at risk of prolonged detention. International migration standards assert that migration-related detention should avoid being prolonged or indefinite. While the Italy-Albania agreement writes that asylum claims should be granted within 28 days of detention, all necessary procedures, including organizing repatriation, could take up to 18 months. Similarly, the treaty does not write out an explicit cap for detention, meaning detention could continue to surpass the initial 28-day goal. 

The Italy-Albania migration deal also raises concerns regarding the right to nationality. Following a rejected asylum claim, plans regarding repatriation are then made with the refugee’s country of origin. However, states may ignore these requests or refuse to work with Italy. Being rejected by Italy and without the support of their home country, asylum-seekers may be left without international representation, thus rendering them devoid of nationality. 

Migrants fill an entire boat which is on route to Italy
Image 3: Refugees begin their journey to Italy. Source: Yahoo Images

Pushback

This program has also been relatively controversial within Italy, with the Italian courts pushing back against Prime Minister Meloni’s plan. Following the first ship of migrants arriving in Albania, the national courts ruled that all 16 asylum-seekers be transferred to Italy rather than remain in the outsourced detention centers. Though coming from the list of safe countries, the judges concluded that the repatriation of the refugees would put them at risk of violence, thus accepting their asylum claims. More recently, the courts ordered the transfer of seven more men from Albania to Italy, again going against the vision presented by Meloni’s government. In this case, the courts explained that for a country to be deemed safe, all cities and regions must be free of persecution and violence, not just select areas. Between these two cases, all 24 detainees have been sent to Italy following their forcible detention in Albania.

This program is also largely unpopular among the Italian populace, with only 30% approval. 

This deal follows other agreements Prime Minister Meloni has made with other states regarding immigration. In 2023, the Italian government and the European Union provided monetary and technical support to Libya, encouraging their coast guard to intercept fleeing citizens and forcibly bring them back to the country. Those who attempted to escape were left vulnerable once they returned, often being subjected to various human rights abuses such as torture and sexual exploitation. Prime Minister Meloni has also offered to provide financial assistance to North African countries in an attempt to minimize immigration. 

Conclusion 

Though initially regarded as a promising answer to European migration, the Italy-Albania agreement has been frequently challenged by both human rights institutions and Italy’s own courts. Though all Albanian detainees have been transferred to Italy, this program raises questions regarding the treatment of refugees, making this issue important to monitor. 

Human Rights Concerns About the 2024 Austrian National Council Elections

The recent National Council elections in Austria, held on September 29th, saw the rise of the Freedom Party (FPO), as they won a plurality of the total vote and overtook the current administration in support. This far-right party has maintained moderate support since its founding in 1956; however, in the past few years, it has seen both a sizeable shift towards conservatism and a significant uptick in support. While only 28.8% of the total vote was garnered, this was more than the Austrian People’s Party’s (OVP) 26.3%, which, up until this election, held the most parliamentary seats. This electoral success has increased FPO representation in the National Council, now having 57 out of 183 total seats. While it seems unlikely that the party will be able to form a coalition and thus achieve a majority in government, this victory still raises questions regarding minority rights and foreign policy and warrants concern due to Austria’s history with far-right regimes. This rise in conservatism also follows a general shift to the right among European countries, making Austria and its surrounding states worthy of monitoring. 

A crowd of Austrian citizens rally together in support of the Freedom Party.
Image 1: Austrians rally in support of the FPO. Source: Yahoo Images

Austrian Government: Structure and History

Structure 

The Austrian government is a parliamentary system, meaning the percentage a party gains through voting directly translates into representation in government. Similarly, the country is home to numerous political parties, meaning multiple political platforms can receive representation. Considered the backbone of the Austrian government, the National Council is where bills are developed into laws before being passed over for Federal approval. It has a total of 187 seats. Having multiple platforms represented means that parties rarely receive an outright majority, forcing movements to coalesce or form political alliances with one another. This way, legislation can be passed quickly since a majority is held. This system allows for accurate representation of the country’s political views; however, without some sort of coalition, the government might not be able to agree on policies, thus leading to a stalemate. 

Impacts of Modern History

Modern history plays an important role in Austria’s political landscape of today. During World War Two, Austria was ruled by the Nazi regime after being annexed into the German Reich. Under this leadership, discriminatory legislation was codified, subjecting Jewish and other minority groups to grossly inhumane treatment. Following the war, the country came under Allied occupation, ultimately leading to its independence in 1955. During this time, Austria declared itself a neutral nation and was generally center-right in social and economic policy. It was also around this time that the FPO was founded by a former Nazi officer.  However, the policies were regarded as fitting the center-right norm. Since then, the FPO has slowly gained national recognition and pushed itself to the right, blossoming throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. 2017 showed the biggest jump in support with the FPO forming a coalition with the OVP, causing a noticeable shift to the right within the government, especially regarding views on immigration, Islam, and Austria’s role in the European Union. Though this coalition ultimately collapsed two years later, this period led to a normalization of right-wing and discriminatory rhetoric, setting the path for increased support of the FPO.

Image 2: Herbert Kickl stands in front of a crowd of supporters, all holding pro-FPO signs.
Image 2: FPO leader Herbert Kickl stands amongst supporters. Source: Yahoo Images

FPO: Policies and Potential Implications Regarding Human Rights

Anti-Immigration 

The FPO has taken a strong stance against immigration, with its party manifesto claiming that “Austria is not a country of immigration.” The party argues that by minimizing immigrants within the country, taxes can be lowered while still maintaining social welfare programs, going along with its proposal of welfare attached to citizenship. Furthermore, the FPO has shown interest in deportation, lowering accepted asylum claims, and banning new immigrants from entering the country based on family unification. Party leader Herbert Kickl has also shared his belief that migrants who “refuse to assimilate” should lose their citizenship and be forced out of the country. This anti-immigration attitude is additionally concerning when considering the refugee crisis occurring within Europe. The war in Ukraine, civil war in Syria, and earthquakes in Turkey have led to a dramatic increase in asylum claims throughout the continent. Limiting immigration can have detrimental effects on refugees seeking safety, basic necessities, and better living conditions for themselves and their families. 

Islamophobia 

The FPO has uncharitable views on Islam, claiming it will pass a law to ban so-called “political Islam” and utilizing the slogan “Home, not Islam” during its campaign. This follows a general rise in Islamophobia throughout Austria, with an increase in anti-Muslim-related attacks in the past year, and anti-Muslim policies being implemented in 2015. These policies are argued to have violated Austria’s right to religious freedom, as they banned the use of Islam-related foreign funding and increased state surveillance over Islamic institutions. 

Kickl’s proposed ban on political Islam continues Austria’s pattern of violating its citizens’ constitutional right to religious freedom and gives the government more power to legally carry out anti-Muslim acts. 

Gender and Sexuality

The FPO holds extremely conservative views on issues regarding gender and sexuality. The party is against same-sex marriage, writing out in its manifesto that “We are committed to the primacy of marriage between a man and a woman as a distinct way of protecting child welfare.” The movement also hopes to codify the existence of only two genders in the constitution, exclude transgender athletes from participating in sports competitions, and ban the public use of gender-inclusive language. Harmful rhetoric has also been utilized by the campaign, deeming increased representation and inclusivity of LGBTQ+ members as “propaganda” and “indoctrination.” This is part of a broader agenda to reinstate traditional gender norms and conservative family values. The passing of such discriminatory legislation would further marginalize members of the LGBTQ+ community, limiting their personal autonomy and ability to freely navigate their lives. 

Foreign Policy

One key component of the FPO’s foreign policy revolves around its skepticism of the European Union, believing the institution holds too much power over signatory countries. In July 2024, the party joined Patriots for Europe, a far-right European Parliamentary group. This movement is supported by various right-wing parties found around the EU. Its platform is centered around weakening the authority of the EU and takes a strong stance against illegal immigration and the implementation of and adherence to the European Green New Deal. Similarly, the FPO is against providing aid to Ukraine on the premise of its 1955 commitment to neutrality. It also rejects the EU’s sanctions on Russia. These ties go back further than Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, with evidence showing that FPO leader Herbert Kickl might have ties to Russian intelligence agencies. These behaviors show a turn away from the commitments of the European Union and alignment with other Eurosceptic countries.

Austrians manage a table asking citizens to sign a petition for Austria to leave the European Union.
Image 3: Austrian citizens take signatures to exit the European Union. Source: Yahoo Images

Kickl Controversies

Party leader Herbert Kickl has also been part of numerous controversies, raising questions about the intentions of the FPO and his ability to coalesce. One major issue has been his use of Nazi rhetoric, with his team labeling him as “Volkskanzler,” meaning “people’s chancellor,” a term used to describe Hitler during his reign. Similarly, Kickl gave a speech in which he accused centrist politicians of “Volksverrat,” or “treason against the people.” Again, this term was often used by Hitler and the greater Nazi regime. Kickl has also verbalized his support for the Identitarian Movement, a platform that, at its core, argues for the upholding and protection of white supremacy. He has also utilized hateful rhetoric specifically targeted toward the Muslim community. Throughout his time in politics, he has argued that Islamist fundamentalists should be deported, that hijab-wearing should be banned, and that anti-Semitism within Austria is the fault of Islamic teachings and not due to their Nazi history. Kickl has also been vocal about his opposition to vaccines, claiming COVID-19 vaccinations are “a genetic engineering experiment.” 

Due to his countless controversies, the OVP is not seeking a coalition with the FPO, making it unlikely that Kickl and his party will reach a majority within the parliament. While this may ring true, the rise in Kickl’s support highlights the normalization of discriminatory and science-reluctant rhetoric throughout the country, along with aligning with a broader shift towards conservatism within Central Europe as a whole. 

Conclusion 

Though it is unlikely that Kickl and his party will gain a majority within the parliament, the ability of this far-right movement to gain a plurality signals a broader shift in the country towards conservatism. Not only this, but it highlights the normalization of harmful rhetoric against minority and historically mistreated groups. While FPO’s influence might be limited, the situation in Austria warrants being monitored due to its past with extremist regimes. Similarly, this follows a trend towards conservatism among other European countries, such as Hungary, Italy, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic, which might also have serious implications regarding the commitments and authority of the European Union.